1 Pet. iv. 14. εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ μακάριοι.

1 Pet. v. 1. Witness of sufferings fellow-sharer of glory.

1 Pet. v. 3. κατακυριεύοντες.

1 Pet. v. 6. ταπεινώθητε...ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ.

Mt. ν. 11. μακάριοι ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν...ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ.

Lk. xxiv. 47. Ye are witnesses of these things.

Mt. xix. 28, Lk. xxii. 30. When the Son of Man shall sit upon the throne of his glory ye also, etc. Mt. xx. 25. οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἔθνων κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν. οὐχ οὕτως ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν.

Mt. xxiii. 12. ὅστις ταπεινώσει ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται.

3. CANONICITY.

With the exception of the First Epistle of St John, the First Epistle of St Peter is the only one among the Catholic Epistles "of whose authority there never was any doubt in the Church."

It was rejected by the heretic Marcion because he only accepted the Pauline books of the N.T. Theodore of Mopsuestia is also said by Leontius to have rejected "the Epistle of St James and the other Catholic Epistles in order," but probably this only means 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter and Jude, which were not accepted by the Syrian Churches. There is however some evidence which tends to shew that originally none of the Catholic Epistles were included in the Syrian Canon, but 1 John, 1 Peter and James had been accepted by them long before Theodore's time.

It is also omitted in the present text of the Muratorian fragment, which gives a list, possibly drawn up by Hippolytus, of the books accepted in the Church of Rome at the end of the second century. But this list, as we have it, is admitted to be incomplete. Some suggest that St Peter and his Epistle may have been mentioned in the lost portion dealing with St Mark's Gospel, while Zahn thinks that a passage, which in the existing text deals with the Apocalypse of Peter, may have originally referred to his first Epistle.

With these insignificant and doubtful exceptions the evidence for the reception of 1 Peter by the Church is extraordinarily strong.

In the fourth century Eusebius includes it among those books which are "generally received" (H. E. iii. 25. 2) and says that "the

Fathers of former days quoted it in their writings as indisputably authentic." This statement is amply supported by facts.

In the third century Origen (quoted by Eus. H. E. vi. 25) says "Peter has left one acknowledged Epistle," and he quotes v. 13. Clement of Alexandria constantly quotes the Epistle by name and wrote a commentary on it in his Hypotyposes, of which fragments in a Latin translation by Cassiodorus are still extant.

Tertullian at Carthage also quotes it as the work of St Peter. Hippolytus (on Dan. iv. 59), writing in Rome or the neighbourhood, quotes the words "which things the angels desire to look into" side by side with quotations from St Paul.

In the second century Irenaeus, who was brought up in Asia Minor and afterwards came to Lyons and Rome, and who therefore represents three of the chief centres of Christendom besides being closely connected with Polycarp and other survivors of the Apostolic age, is the earliest writer who quotes the Epistle by name. We have also numerous traces of the Epistle:

(a) In Martyrdoms such as the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs (c. 180) and the letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne (177 A.D.) (Eus. H. E. v. 1).

(b) In Apologists. Theophilus (ad Autolycum ii. 34) and Justin Martyr (Dial. 103) have apparent quotations from it.

(c) Heretics such as the Valentinians both Western (Marcosians quoted by Irenaeus i. 18) and Eastern (in Clem. Al.) and Basilides (Clem. Al. Strom. iv. p. 600) seem to quote the Epistle.

(d) The writer to Diognetus certainly and the Didache probably quote words from 1 Peter.

(e) There are possible allusions to it in The Shepherd of Hermas.

(f) Papias Bp of Hierapolis is stated by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39) to have used it as a witness, and in ii. 15 Eusebius says that Papias confirms the story given by Clement of Alexandria that St Peter approved Mark's action in writing his Gospel, and then, quoting either from Clement himself or from Papias, says that "Peter mentions Mark in his former Epistle which, they say, he composed in Rome itself, and that he signified this by describing the city by the metaphorical name Babylon." This last state

ment that Babylon in the Epistle means Rome is not found in any of the extant writings of Clement of Alexandria and is therefore probably derived from Papias, and the fragment of Papias on Mark, quoted in Eus. iii. 39, refers back to some previous statement of his ("as I said") about St Mark's connexion with St Peter.

(g) Polycarp (c. 115 A.D.) is stated by Eusebius to have used 1 Peter, and in the extant Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians there are at least eight direct quotations from 1 Peter. It is true that these are not by name nor are they introduced by the formula edores or which Polycarp frequently employs in quoting from St Paul, to whom he does refer by name, probably because St Paul had founded the Philippian Church and had himself written a letter to them. But in quoting from the O.T., the Gospels and Acts Polycarp's quotations are anonymous, therefore there is no necessity to assume, as Harnack does, that Polycarp did not know the Epistle as the work of St Peter.

(h) Clement of Rome (c. 95 A.D.) has several words and phrases from 1 Peter, e.g. "the precious blood" of Christ, "his marvellous light," Christ's humility (illustrated by Isaiah liii. and Ps. xxii.) our example (vroуpaμμós), a word which is peculiar to St Peter in the N.T. Besides this Clement has two quotations with the same variation from the LXX. as 1 Peter, viz. "Love covers a multitude of sins" and "God (eós not Kúpios as the LXX.) resisteth the proud." This however also occurs in the same form in St James and in Ignatius, Eph. v.

(2) In 2 Pet. iii. 1 the writer says "this is the second Epistle which I am writing to you beloved." This book, even if it is not authentic, is admitted to be extremely early, and if we could be certain that the words refer to our 1 Peter it would shew that it was already known as the work of the Apostle. But if 2 Peter is not genuine it might of course be referring to some previous epistle by the same writer which is now lost.

4. THE PLACE OF WRITING.

In v. 13 St Peter sends the following salutations to his distant readers in Asia Minor 'Ασπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μάρκος ὁ υἱός μου. In the notes on that verse reasons are given for adopting the view that ý σvvekλektý refers to a church

and not to an individual. But in either case the words ev Baßuλovi must almost certainly refer to the place from which St Peter was writing.

Three possible interpretations have been suggested.

A. Babylon on the Euphrates.

In favour of this it may be urged:

(1) That in a letter literal language rather than metaphorical is what would naturally be expected at any rate in the more prosaic details of the address from which and to which the letter is sent. (2) That Babylon was one of the most important centres of the Jewish dispersion. (3) That St Peter was especially appointed to work among "those of the circumcision" and therefore would be very likely to visit such an important Jewish centre as Babylon was.

In answer to these arguments it may be urged:

(1) That the words σvvekλektý and viós in the immediate context are both to some extent metaphorical and would therefore suggest a metaphorical meaning for Babylon to St Peter's readers. Also the opening salutation i. 1 ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς is almost certainly metaphorical and does not refer to the Jewish dispersion. Moreover the letter was not sent "through the post" so that there was no necessity for a "post-mark” or address to explain the writer's present abode. Silvanus would give them all necessary information. (2) That, whereas it is true that there had been a very large Jewish colony down to the reign of the Emperor Caius, we learn from Josephus (Ant. xviii. a) that about the year 40 A.D. great disasters fell upon the Babylonian Jews. Many of them were massacred, while others fled to Seleucia and thence to Ctesiphon. It is therefore very doubtful whether any considerable Jewish colony existed in Babylon at the time when 1 Peter was written. (3) That

there is no evidence or tradition to connect either St Peter or St Mark with Babylon or the far East, nor is there any evidence for the existence of a Christian Church in Babylon.

B. Babylon in Egypt.

The only arguments for this view are:

(1) That it affords a literal interpretation of the name.